Introduction

Following our discussion in Chapter 4, we will next consider part of the experimental literature in public good games that looks at how we can improve our understanding of issues of human cooperation in the presence of free-riding incentives. Given the bulk of research that has been conducted in this topic, we have devoted this second public good games chapter, focusing on a number of key behavioural determinants of cooperative behaviour. The selection of the topics discussed is a combination of their centrality and influence they have played in the experimental public good literature but also reflects part of my own research interests.

The first topic that we will explore in this chapter relates to the impact of communication on pro-social behaviour. This is one of the most popular and well-researched topics not only in behavioural economics but also in other disciplines such as in psychology, politics and sociology. The effects of communication as a means of establishing a common ground among all involved parties in the decision-making process are important to be understood. From a methodological perspective, communication is typically banned from laboratory experiments as participants make decisions being isolated and without communicating with each other. In cases where communication among participants is allowed, the main reason for this is that the researchers are interested in identifying the effects of communication on behaviour. At the same time, standard economic theory suggests that (non-binding) communication will not have any effect on behaviour, which makes the topic of studying communication in economics experiments of great interest. One crucial element when assessing the effects of communication on behaviour is the medium of communication. Experimental findings show that not all communication modes are effective in raising contribution levels. In the first subsection, our focus will be on which types of communication are (not) conducive to cooperation.

Next, we will offer evidence on whether endowment heterogeneity makes individuals more or less pro-social. The characteristic of introducing differences in endowments provided to subjects reflects real-life instances where income in the society is distributed unequally.